State ex rel. Brown v. Rusk
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Mandamus. Tbe affidavit filed for tbe relator shows tbe following facts: In July, 1861, tbe state sold to tbe Bank of Columbus its bonds to tbe amount of $52,000, and received seventy per cent on that amount, and tbe bond of tbe bank, conditioned for tbe payment of tbe remaining thirty per cent., in semi-annual installments of one per cent., with an agreement that the state bonds so purchased should be deposited with the bank comptroller as security for tbe…
Read the full summary
APPLICATION for a Mandamus. Tbe affidavit filed for tbe relator shows tbe following facts: In July, 1861, tbe state sold to tbe Bank of Columbus its bonds to tbe amount of $52,000, and received seventy per cent on that amount, and tbe bond of tbe bank, conditioned for tbe payment of tbe remaining thirty per cent., in semi-annual installments of one per cent., with an agreement that the state bonds so purchased should be deposited with the bank comptroller as security for tbe circulation of tbe bank, and that tbe state treasurer, in case said semi-annual installments, or any of them, should…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
In support of tbe demurrer to tbe first paragraph of tbe answer, it is claimed, that, under tbe agreement between tbe bank and tbe officers of tbe state, tbe bonds of tbe state *641were beld in trust for two purposes: first, to secure the outstanding circulation of the bank; and secondly, for the application of the accruing interest, on the bonds to the discharge of the purchase money due the state, if it could be so applied without injury to the bill holders; that this agreement created an express trust to subserve the above purposes, and that if the bank which created the trust has converted or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Marshall v. RuskWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by1 opinion
- Porter v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879